PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PwC Independent Study into School Leadership

John Lakin

National Union of Teachers The Future of School Leadership conference, 1st May 2007

Slide 2 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

OutlineOutline

• Terms of reference• Approach• Key findings• Recommendations• Conclusions

Slide 3 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

What we were asked to examine… our terms of reference

Provide a comprehensive and independent account of existing, emerging and potential models of school leadership, including• roles and responsibilities• governance• reward and contractual arrangements• career paths• recruitment and succession• support staff• lessons from other sectors

Slide 4 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

What we did… our approach

Literature review(100+ documents)

Stakeholder interviews (50+ interviews)

Survey of school leaders(3,000+ respondents)

Focus groups with teachers

(100+ participants)

School visits(50 schools)

Methodology

Slide 5 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Some of our key findings…

• More complex and demanding role• ‘Hero head’ model is redundant• Need for greater distributed leadership• Leaders think they distribute leadership well, but their staff

don’t always agree• Work-life balance is more important than pay• Behaviours matter more than structures• Clear moves towards flatter, wider management structures• No ‘one size fits all’ solutions

Slide 6 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

What is effective leadership (from Ofsted reports)?

• A clear vision based on pupil need• Accurate and on-going self-evaluation • Carefully designed structures and distributed leadership • Well-developed succession planning • Well-informed and active governing bodies • A holistic approach to managing diverse workforces• Protection of the ‘strategic space’

Slide 7 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Views on effective leadership (from ‘the led’)

Characteristics of effective leadersFor support staff, effective leaders… For teachers, effective leaders…

•Recognise and value the work of others •Are visible and approachable

•Communicate fully and effectively with all staff •Are supportive

•Define roles and responsibilities clearly •Have an in-depth knowledge of the school and of the wider community

•Provide development opportunities •Are interested in wider issues rather than just results

•Adopt an open, consultative approach •Understand classroom practice

•Are visible •Are non-hierarchical and consultative

•Have a constructive approach to performance management

•Distribute leadership effectively

•Act and feedback on concerns raised •Act and feedback on concerns raised

Slide 8 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Some key future leadership skills

• Change management• Financial management• People management• Buildings and project management• Stakeholder management and interpersonal skills• Managing extended services

Slide 9 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Models of leadership

• The traditional model• Managed models• Multi-agency managed• Federated models• System leadership

Slide 10 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

The Chief Executive/ non QTS leader debate

For• No legal requirement at present • Reflects changing role of school

leadership• Widens leadership talent pool to all

school staff and beyond• Examples in other sectors and

countries• Opens up other ways of

addressing professional leadership• Supported by some teacher

associations

Against• No current examples in UK• Devalues primacy of teaching and

learning• Non QTS talent pool lacks

credibility• Schools are unique and evidence

from elsewhere mixed• Professional and operational

leadership cannot be divorced• Not supported by majority of

existing heads/teachers

Slide 11 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Recommendations - overview

Rationalising the policy landscape

Building capacity – enabling the sector to distribute leadership

Modernising governance and accountability

Promoting diverse school structures

Winning hearts and minds

Rewarding the sector for distributed leadership behaviours

Slide 12 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Rationalising the policy landscape

Key findings

• Leaders continue to feel frustrated with the pace and complexity of policy change

Number of initiativesMandatory vs voluntaryCross-sectoral dimension (i.e.

educational and social)Tensions between initiatives

Recommendations

• DfES to engage sector better on design and communication of policy initiatives

Strengthen limiting mechanismsClarity between mandatory/advisory‘Sense checking’ of resources

• Regular mapping exercise of bureaucratic burden to balance increases against reductions

• Promote measures that recognise wider contributions of schools

Extended provision/social outcomesCollaboration/ multi-agency working

• Promote voice of parents and learners at all levels

Slide 13 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Promoting more diverse school structures

Key findings

• Traditional hierarchical structures not sustainable

• One size does not fit all • Disproportionate pressure on small schools• Clear evidence of innovative emerging

structures

Recommendations

• Publish and promote new modelsVia simple guideIncorporating NCSL materials

• Develop national programme of support for new models

Working with NCSLPump prime innovative models

• Remove legal and regulatory barriersExecutive headsOther innovative structures

• Carry out longer term evaluations of new models

Slide 14 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Modernising governance and accountability

Key findings

• Lack of capacity/skills in governing bodies• Lack of clarity, and some inconsistencies,

around accountability for school leaders within ECM context

Recommendations

• Review governance to considerSize, composition and skill mixHow employers can increase poolAggregation of governing bodiesImpact of multi-agency agendasFormalising pro bono

contributions

• Provide guidance on roles of governors

Strategic involvementWider accountabilitiesExtended services

Slide 15 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Building capacity

Key findings

• Professional qualifications overly restrictive and do not necessarily reflect complexity of new environment

• Recruitment issues at all levels• Burgeoning workload – in large part due to

ECM agenda• Lack of career progression opportunities for

non-teaching professionals

Recommendations

• Promote diversity/succession planning in the sector

Shorten time from QTS to headshipEncourage BME/female candidatesSupport ‘system leadership’Consider non QTS professionalsPilot rotation of leaders

• Adopt new approach to qualificationsReview NPQH content and deliveryAccredit other relevant learningInvest in ongoing developmentLeadership training for support staffMentoring and support post NPQH

• Expand development opportunitiesExchanges, secondments,

shadowingValuing and requiring continuing

CPDFunding CPD for leadersIncreasing e-learning opportunities

Slide 16 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Winning hearts and minds

Key findings

• Traditional approach and conservatism predominates in the sector:

SchoolsGovernors/LAsParents/public

Recommendations

• Develop a communications strategyDescribe changing landscapeExplain benefits of new modelsChallenge attitudes/expectationsAttract new talent

Slide 17 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Rewarding the sector

Key findings

• Pay levels not the main issue• Pay framework out of line, in a number of

respects, with policy framework• Some issues around differentials

Recommendations

• Maintain the existing pay frameworkModification not radical change

• Reward new roles and performanceExecutive headsSystem leadershipSupport staff in leadership

positionsSTRB to oversee all school staffUse of balanced scorecardGuidance on existing flexibilities

• Review differentialsBetween different size schoolsBetween sectorsBetween deputies and assistants

Slide 18 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Conclusion

• A broad-ranging package of measures to support existing and future school leaders, without being prescriptive

• Focuses on building capacity and distributed leadership within schools to better manage change and make the job more ‘doable’

• Contains challenges for all parties, including government• Provides an evidence base from which others can draw• Provides a possible programme of action, in whole or in part

Slide 19 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

This presentation is based on the PwC Independent Report into School Leadership which was prepared for and only for DfES in accordance with the terms of our engagement letter dated April 2006 and for no other party and/or purpose. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP does not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any other purpose for which this report may be used or in relation to any other third party or other person(s) or organisation(s), who may read and/or rely on this report, save where expressly agreed in writing with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

© 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers’ refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a limited liability partnership in the United Kingdom) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.

John Lakin (tel: 020 7213 5872, email: john.w.lakin@uk.pwc.com)

David Armstrong (tel: 02890 415176, email: david.m.armstrong@uk.pwc.com)

Report and technical annexes available at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR818A.pdf

PwC Contacts